Barry just looked fat to me not muscular. And that big change from the slender Barry the Chopper in the original Anime to the fat man in Brotherhood is exactly why I choose him as Gluttony in the first place. I kinda imagined it being that Barry the Chopper when he was actually human would look more like he did in the original anime. After his soul ended up in the armor and his body becomes Gluttony he'd just start eating crap till he turns into the Brotherhood version. Though he would still have the mark on his tongue because he's gluttony where else would it be?

Also out of all the characters in the two anime, he always struck me as the one with the most drastic change in appearance.

Don't get me wrong, the original Greed I think had a much better design and better embodied the Sin in what little time he had. But it just kind of annoys me that he shows up just to die in both series. Ling didn't really seem Greedy at all, in fact quite the opposite because everything he did was out of devotion to his people as the ruler of his own nation. The only thing is he had more of a character arc in the series. I really want to like the first Greed but he's in the opening credits for the show longer than he's actually in the show itself. Even in Brotherhood, he lasted a little bit longer but not by much. Ling was Greed for the longest and we actually got to see him developed as a normal human character before becoming Greed. Because of that he ended up being a more interesting character. And I'd rather have one definitive Greed. Plus since I'm combining aspects of the different versions anyway, I can keep his character arc and then have him as a much different more Greedy character once Ling dies.

Well the others did have to constantly check up on him. He wasn't constantly digging cause every chance he got he would just fall asleep in the middle of work. Hell even when he was actually moving half the time it seemed like he was sleep walking, not really aware of anything going on around him.

I know officially he was male. Making him a woman is entirely from my own head cannon cause the character always appeared like a flat chested female to me. As I mentioned before, some women actually do have flat chests. While most women develop breasts during puberty some actually remain flat chested till their first pregnancy. Being that Envy has presumably never been pregnant before since she was created from a girl who died before birth it would make sense that she could still have a flat chest. As for the voice, I was actually talking about the English voice actor. Ed and Al being voiced by women is actually quite common because they're kids not adults. Though I believe in the original Anime they were actually voiced by kids and you can hear how their voices have changed when they were brought back for the animated movie cause they were about 10-12 when the series started and about 13-14 in the movie. In Brotherhood they were voiced by adult women. The difference with Envy is that he is an adult so his voice should be much deeper than the 12 year old Ed Elric.

Also I just looked it up and he was voiced by a woman in Japan too but I was talking about Windy Powell the English voice actress for both versions of Envy. Also I had it wrong before, Ed was actually the same guy in both show. Only Al went from being voiced by an actual kid who hit puberty at some point while working on the original anime to a woman pretending to be a little boy in Brotherhood. That must of been odd for Ed going from working with another dude as his brother to working with a woman as his brother. For some reason I thought the entire cast was different but some characters are actually the same in both anime... I wish Scott McNeil was brought back for Brotherhood, especially since it would mean voicing Father as well as Hohenheim.

Confidence is a form of Pride. Also, I wouldn't call someone who doesn't show their anger wrathful. That shows control, an ability to hold back your anger is a good thing. I've seen people who get angry at the littlest things, things that they wouldn't even care about if they stopped and took a moment to calm down. People with some serious anger management issues. Wrath isn't someone who rarely gets mad, that's a person who doesn't sweat the small stuff. Someone who realizes it's not that big a deal. Wrath is someone who is easily pissed off by the most mundane and meaningless thing. Wrath is a child throwing a temper tantrum when he doesn't get his way.

The whole point of Wrath is that it's a form of anger where the raw emotion of whatever you're mad about is in control. Being calm, cool, and calculated in your attacks, that's impossible under the influence of Wrath. Even the most skilled fighter will lash out wildly in frustration when they're losing. You never see that with Bradely, he's always in control because he doesn't think he can lose, that's Pride not Wrath.

Plus he was a brat and was totally ok with killing his own allies if they pissed him off. It seemed fitting to have Al's body rather than another dead infant and better explains how he ended up with Ed's arm and leg when they were both taken at the same time. Personality wise Brotherhood's Pride was much creepier, that kid scared the crap out of me. The original Anime's Wrath, while I kinda like his origin the personality of the character was kinda... well he was more just sad and pathetic than a true Wrath. He was also a terrible villain cause I pretty much just felt sorry for him the entire time he was on screen. I should not be sympathizing with the evil soulless villain child. If he were a real child then sure, but he's an artificial human with no soul. I don't want to have sympathy for him, I want to be terrified of the devil child. So he gets the personality of Brotherhood Pride, that terrifying little demon child.

 

All the homunculi are prideful in their own ways. Pride was Father's most prominent trait and he was the first homunculus that Father created, but clearly even after Pride was expelled, Father's pride was still intact. So it would make sense that all of his children have that one sin in common, because pride is the father of all sins.

I think Brotherhood Sloth is about wasted potential. He spent like 400 years digging that tunnel and he's just lazily scratching and grabbing dirt. He's the fastest homunculus, who moves so fast you can't even see him. If he actually gave a shit and knew how to use his power he could eviscerate everyone with how strong and fast he is, but he just couldn't be bothered.

I don't think Wrath was ever jealous of humans, he thought of us as like little pests always bothering him while he was working. Even in his dying breath (English Dub of Brotherhood) he says our idiosyncrasies made life worth living, basically saying our idiot behavior was entertaining enough for him to continue with Father's work and unlike Envy, he's not weeping while he says it, he's smiling peacefully.

 

Maybe FMA and GITS should have done a swap: have Motoko be played by an actual Japanese and have the Elrics be played by actual white people.

IMO the way anime is popular around the world the best course (and maybe the safest) for adapting a live-action anime would be an international collaboration by both East and West.

 

Someone made a meme about Hollywood and Japan swapping movies awhile ago, lol. They actually did that with the Romani Kenshin movies and fans love it.

 

I do agree that Trisha as Sloth wasn't explored very in depth as an antagonist in the first anime. It felt like the writers just included her to check a box on the list of Seven Deadly Sins and pad out the ranks of the homunculi. Even when Al mentions that the secretary looks exactly like their mother, Ed kinda avoids and then changes the subject since he doesn't want to even talk about it. Their fight ending in Sloth's death felt a bit rushed and obligatory, and didn't really resonate with me as much as Lust's tragic character did.

I also agree Greed was wasted in the first anime but he was much better developed in Brotherhood as GreeLing. Greed wasnt just an outcast among the homunculi, he ended up a hero by sacrificing himself for the idea of friendship (he was a greedy but lonely guy and wanted to be loved, poor bloke).

Yeah, Sloth as wasted potential is definitely his main theme. Reminds me of Skywarp. He could be an incredibly powerful Decepticon with his tekeportation ability, but he wastes it on dumb pranks and doesn't have the intelligence nor the ambition to implement that power more effectively.  

Getting back to the live action movie, I'm guessing they'll only have time for Lust, Gluttony, and Envy (plus Wrath and Pride if they decide to foreshadow Bradley and his "son") during their limited screen time.

Perhaps, but then you'd end up with the problem of having the side characters like Maes Hughes and background folks still played by Japanese actors. It wouldn't be too dissimilar a situation to having Aang, Katana, and Sokka played by white kids in The Last Airbender, but still have the people of the Southern Water Tribe played notably by Inuit and minority extras. It'd be ridiculous and noticeable.

Barring the Ishbalan/Xingese characters, either go full Japanese/Asian or go fill white, but to mix and match is just a half measure. Logistically speaking, it would've been extremely difficult for this movie to go full-on white actors and still have everyone inexplicably speak Japanese seeing how it's aimed squarely at a Japanese audience/theatrical release.

At any rate, earlier someone mention where the Germans at and my answer to that question is, the world of FMA is NOT Germany nor is it even set in our reality (in spite of the interdimensional Nazi Germany craziness of the first anime). Despite the trappings of a pre Nazi Germany analogue, there are no "Germans" in the world of FMA. Who's to say the people of Amestris can't have physical Asian features and speak Japanese?

 

I remember Edward making a jab at Ling for having "funny eyes" or something like that. I agree with you though, it doesn't really matter what race they are. I mean, Ed and Al are like "European"-ish and some kind of blonde/albino, yellow eyed, middle eastern race that doesn't exist, good luck putting that on a Japanese casting sheet  

 

Those aren't really the best images of Barry. But when you're watching Barry fight himself, the soul in the armor with the body, they're both just as big. He looks fat in that armor too. Maybe not as fat as the actual Gluttony but still pretty damn big. Could always have him continue to gain weight and have his hair fall out till he does end up looking like the official Gluttony cause there isn't really that much of a difference between them.

Ling would have to die in my version cause Homunculus are humans without souls. Lings soul can't still be inside Greed the way he was in Brotherhood cause it would contradict the origins I prefer from the original anime. This also means that Ling's personality would not be rubbing off on Greed the way it happened in Brotherhood since they would never share a body like that.

Oh and to clear things up because I think we're talking about Greed in two different ways. Greed 1, referring to the original body of Greed in Brotherhood wasn't there any longer than he was in the original anime. Most of his character development comes from Greed 2, when that personality was sharing Ling's body. You seem to be referring to Greed 1 as the personality of Greed regardless of which body he's inhabiting. Which would explain why you seem to think he lasted longer in Brotherhood cause technically he did but at the same time Greed 2 never really felt like the same character as the first Greed.

1. Yeah, if you're flat chested and muscular your chest is going to look like that no matter what your gender is. You don't seem to be understanding the fact that not all women have breasts. Girls aren't born with breasts already. They start out flat chested and only develop breasts during puberty. That is most girls develop during puberty, some will continue to look like boys till their first pregnancy. The chest is not always the best way to identify gender.

2. Actually it depends on the series. If the voice cast is terrible then of course it's going to sound terrible. But Full Metal Alchemist is really well dubbed with a great cast. I can't stand to watch anything with subtitles because I have to constantly pause and play and I can't pay attention to the animation while I'm trying to read at the same time. If I want to read I'll pick up a book like Hitchhiker's Guide, Dirk Gently, Shada, or the Covenant of Primus cause then I can read at my own pace.

Plus I hate when it puts text from two different characters on the screen at the same time cause then I don't know who said what. They try to color code it to the character but that doesn't really help me. I freaking hate subtitles. The only way I'm going to watch an Anime in Japanese is if I freaking learn to speak and understand Japanese, which at my age is probably never. Maybe if I learned as a child when it was a lot easier to pick up a second language but not as an adult.

When I'm watching something I just want to be able to sit back, relax, and enjoy whatever it is I'm watching not feel like I'm back in school doing work. The only time I can read and actually enjoy it is when the words aren't moving as I'm trying to read them. I can enjoy a book but subtitles are just annoying and painfully difficult.

Frustration is a form of wrath. Frustration, anger, rage, wrath, they're all the same thing. It's unchecked aggression that causes a person to lash out with that emotion.

Of course everyone feels this way some times but the part that actually makes it wrath is when your emotions have control over you not the other way around. Bradly certainly had his anger but he was always in control, not the emotion. I would think someone who is suppose to be the embodiment of that uncontrolled emotion would be exactly that, uncontrolled anger. Having him in control of his anger is not what Wrath is about.

To put it into perspective using the other sins. Lust is the sin of sex, but that doesn't mean that all sex is lust, if you're actually in love, that's not lust. Gluttony is the sin of eating but that's not to say you should starve yourself, it's OVER EATING that makes it turn into Gluttony. Greed is the sin of want or desire of material things, which again is ok in moderation, but hoarding things just to have things is what makes it turn into Greed. Sloth is lazyness, you can relax some time times, you don't need to be constantly working but you can't be just sitting around never doing anything either. Now you apply that same thing to Wrath, the sin of anger, calm, calculated, in control is not Wrath. Wrath is pure unchecked, uncontrolled anger. I'm sure you have seen people who are in control but that's not wrath. Everyone experiences anger some times, it's a normal human emotion, you can't avoid it. That's impossible. To say that all forms of anger are wrath is unrealistic. And every other sin is more about having an excess of something not knowing how to take things in moderation. Simply feeling angry isn't in itself Wrath. Wrath is only when the emotion of anger controls your actions, it's raw unchecked, uncontrolled anger that becomes Wrath. You can not be calm and calculating when you're under the influence of Wrath, that's like having Lust experience real love, having gluttony go on a diet, making Sloth work full time, having Greed give things to charity. Calm is the completely opposite of Wrath. You can't have calm and be Wrathful.

Also, wasn't boastful about it? He would talk constantly while fighting bragging about how good he was, talking down to his opponent that they could never beat him, that is most certainly boastful. Having that much confidence in your skills as a fighter than you basically claim victory before the fight has even started which is exactly what Bradly did every time, that's Pride. It's ok to be confident but you gotta have doubt too to balance it out, to recognize that you're not going to always be the best at something. Confidence turns to Pride when you have no doubt and Bradly is certainly that considering how he thought he could never lose. He would call victory in a fight before he even pulled out his sword. That is Pride right there.

As I explained above Wrath does have to be inconsolable rage because that's what makes it wrath. Just showing anger isn't wrath. Everyone at some point will experience anger. It's not realistic to say all anger is Wrath. Just like the other sins, it's only when you have an excess of something that it becomes a sin. Anger isn't wrath until you let yourself become consumed by it. Bradly got angry yes, but never to to the point where it became Wrath.

And Bradly was boastful in both series. His attitude, his personality, his fighting style, his ability with that mark on his eye, was all the same. The only thing that changed was the name and origin.

The kid actually changed more than he did because in the original anime, Bradly's son wasn't a Homunculi, he was just a normal little boy. I think if I remember right, he was actually the son of the real Bradly, as in the original human version that Pride was made from. The remains of human/real King Bradly were kept in a safe. However once the location of his remains became compromised and their weakness was known, Pride tried to have his son move the remains to another location without letting him know what was actually inside. The kid misunderstood what he was suppose to do and ended up bringing the remains to Pride which weakened him to the point where Ed could kill him.

In Brotherhood the son who was a normal human before is Pride and Bradly is Wrath. And he is also the real Bradly not an artificial copy like in the first anime. He was raised to be a ruler and there were others as part of the experiment but Bradly was the only one who survived becoming Wrath. He was basically created similar to Greed2 in that they were both humans originally who became Homunculus while others where never originally human. That's also why I prefer the original anime btw, I like the fact that the origins are consistent to all the Homunculus. I also like how they have a clear weakness as apposed to Brotherhood where I'm still not entirely sure what actually killed them...

Or maybe not what that's not quite the right word, the what is kinda obvious, but exactly how did it kill them? Like Lust for example, Mustang burned her multiple times and she just kept regenerating over and over again but then suddenly burning her actually worked and I was never sure why it worked that last time when it failed multiple times before. Like what made that last time different than the previous times she was burned? It just seemed kinda random. And also the way they did isn't consistent either because what works to kill one doesn't work on others. In the original anime they all die the same way, they're basically immortal unless you get them near the remains of the person they were created from. Proximity to such things make them weaker and able to be killed.

 

They died because regenerating over and over again used up all the souls in their philosopher stones. Father says something like that to Gluttony when he dies the first time.

 

Not take over Ling no, it would be that Greed is created from trying to resurrect the dead Ling as you said.

Also there is no Dante. As I said in my original post, the Dante/Father role is filled by an original character with vastly different goals than the two of them. It seemed that Dante and her Homunculus wanted to become more human rather than pale imitations of people. Father was trying to become a God. My character wanted to rid his body of pain but instead ended up riding himself of a body. The body which became the first Homunculus would go onto continue to rid himself of pain but without a soul he doesn't care about who he has to hurt or kill to accomplish his task. Some day the soul and body might join together as one again but the Homunculi won't let that happen until he can no longer feel pain. The soul now bonded to a state alchemist watch is without pain cause he has no nerve endings with which to feel anything but he also can't feel pleasure either. He wants his body back, he doesn't want the pain back but he isn't willing to kill people to get what he wants. He is however basically using Ed and Al in this universe to track down his body cause he can't do it himself. And he doesn't realize that the reason his body always knows he's coming is because part of Pride's job as King Bradly is to keep the soul and body from ever coming into contact with each other. Ed and Al can slip in cause he's not really worried about two kids and Sloth can distract them if they get too be a problem. But once the soul knows that Bradly can't be trusted, as Ed and Al figure out who he really is, then the Soul can track down his body without Pride warning the body he's on his way.

I always end up naming fictional characters I made up Donald James Hansen. Though it's a little more complicated and confusing as to which one I'm talking about when he's technically two characters. A state alchemist who's soul is bonded to his watch and the first homunculi. I never really decided what kind of title to give him as State Alchemists always have an alias like Ed being the Full Metal Alchemist. And I'm not sure what to call the Homunculi version of him other than the Body of Pain. But this original character takes the place of Dante and Father in my version of the story. Though now that I think about it both Dante and Father had a connection to Van. It was way more obvious with Father considering he looked exactly like Van. Not so obvious that there was a connection in the original anime between Van and Dante but if I remember right, Envy was only a half brother to Ed and Al, same father but Dante was the mother. So that was their connection, that Van and Dante were Envy's parents. So I guess my character needs to have some sort of past connection to Van as well... That seems to be the only thing Dante and Father have in common besides being the leaders of the Homunculus is that that they both have a past history with the Elric Brother's father. I haven't really worked that part out.

I think you're still getting the different incarnations of Greed mixed up.

The 2003 version or the original Anime version is just Greed. There was never any other Greed in that series so no need to differentiate him.

Brotherhood, had two Greeds, Greed1 who is pretty much the exact same character as the original anime. Same design, portrayed the same way, and they both die almost immediately after being introduced. Their origins are different and the way they die is different. Original Greed being killed by Ed and that Greed basically committed suicide because he intentionally brought his remains to the fight and wanted Ed to kill him. It's because of that fight with Greed that Ed learned how to kill the others. In Brotherhood, Greed1 was put into that melting pot and absorbed back into Father. He's not really more memorable than the original Green. He didn't really last longer because they both died after about two episodes.

Greed2 is Ling and this is the version of Greed that is the most memorable and lasted the longest. He's also exclusive to Brotherhood. There isn't really a counterpart in the original anime because Ling was never in that series.

You could say that Greed1 and Greed2 are the same character just in a different body but as you said he was suppose to have his memories wiped before he was put into Ling's body. I'm not refer to Greed1 as original anime and Greed2 as Brotherhood. Both Greed1 and Greed2 are from Brotherhood.

Basically...

This is Greed from the original Anime and Greed1 from Brotherhood.



This is Greed 2 who is exclusive to Brotherhood.



When I say Greed1 and Greed2 I'm comparing the two versions of Greed from Brotherhood. His original incarnation to the Ling incarnation.

You could technically say that there are four different characters that we're talking about here and it gets really confusing as to who we're actually referring to when they share the same names.

Greed: 2003 original Anime.

Greed1: Brotherhood incarnation very similar to the original.

Ling: The human who would later become the second incarnation of Greed in Brotherhood. And when he is Greed, the part of him that is still human if that makes any sense.

Greed2: The second incarnation of Greed who seems to be a completely different personality from both Ling and the first Greed.

Greed1 did not last longer than his 2003 counterpart unless you're counting Greed2 as the same character which I don't. Greed 2 is the version who actually lasted a lot longer and was more memorable which is why I choose to base my version of Greed on him. I prefer the design of the other Greed as it appears in both Animes but he's not a very well developed character in either version as that body dies after about two episodes in both versions. Greedling had more of a character arc and is the only version of the character who doesn't immediately die.

Man I wish there was an easier way to talk about these characters that wasn't so freaking confusing.

Also just so you know, I didn't make up the whole Greed1, Greed2 thing. I saw them listed that way on Behindthevoiceactors.com. I think IMDB credits the characters that way as well. It's Brotherhood's official way of differentiating the two versions of the character in the series.

I'm not forgetting, I mentioned that from the start. I'm just saying that my version of the character is female. Officially yes, Envy has always been male. Also I don't recall Envy ever being referred to as genderless but being a shape shifter who can be male or female "it" makes more sense. I would insist that you use more gender neutral pronouns than simply "it" such as hu, hum, or hus depending on the context but that's derived from the word human which Envy is not so "it" is fine.

"To be honest, I own the blu ray of Brotherhood, and I tried watching it in English dub. I couldn't stand it. There's just that difference in enunciation and how the words are spoken (inflection?) that just don't ever match the tone of the conversation/exchange that the original Japanese writers had intended. It may be a cultural thing, but I've found this to be the same for all anime. Hell I use Robotech as a comparison. I loved that show, and to this day think that's probably the best dubbing attempt ever. All other anime...yikes. Yeah no. It just doesn't work for me. I've watched French films, Russian films, Hong Kong, and China films. All in their original language first, then tried the dubbed version. And the dubbed version just couldn't match how you felt when you were watching it subbed. It may work for some, but it never has worked for me. In fact, it almost feels like the "movie watching" experience is ruined watching a foreign film dubbed. Ok, maybe not that extreme, but it's just not the same. It does help that I can speed read the subtitles  "

Maybe you should try watching the dub first and then the original with subtitles? I don't really get how listening to the Japanese sounds better if you're still reading subtitles. You can't actually understand what the hell they're saying.

I did actually try to watch a few episodes of Brotherhood with subtitles because as I said before that series was still being dubbed at the time but there were subs out online already. There were also some pretty long ass breaks between seasons where it felt like I was waiting forever. So I forget the episode title but I believe it's the first time we actually see Ed and Al's father in Brotherhood, I watched that episode for the first time in Japanese with subtitles and I hated it. It was a chore just to get through that one episode. It wasn't so bad in the beginning, just Van sitting around a camp fire talking to himself, and I could actually keep up with the text during that scene cause it was kind of a slow scene. But then a little while after that I found myself having to pause the video and go back so I finish reading a conversation that passed by. A couple giant walls of text where I was trying to figure out who said what. And any time there was an action scene I'd have to watch it twice, once to real the text and once so I could actually watch what was happening. The show is only like 15 minutes per episode and it took me a full half an hour to watch it.

And yeah I've heard some horrible English dubs, mainly from Omni Productions dubs of the Japanese Transformers cartoons. I can not stand to watch those things. They sound like terrible fan dubs made by people who sound nothing like the original voice actors and none of them know how to act. If every English dub sounded like that garbage than I'd agree with you but most English dubs aren't anywhere near that bad.

And that one episode of Brotherhood, from what I saw the English version is exactly the same as the Japanese except I can actually understand the English version and I don't have to pause or rewind it every five-ten minutes.

I think you're just being nitpicky because it's comical in the American version too.

I know all of this, that's exactly what I've been trying to explain to you. Except for that last sentence which contradicts everything else you just said.

You said it yourself, there is no "mild wrath" so why do you also insist that you can be calm and still be Wrath. Calm and angry is mild which as you just said is not Wrath. Wrath is going ballistic.

If you're calm then you are able to think about about your actions before you do anything. People tend to lose their sense of morality when overcome by anger because they're no longer thinking clearly, they're not calm, that's when Wrath kicks in.

That's not Wrath though. I've experienced both. Being so mad at someone let doing nothing about it. I might do something eventually but that doesn't mean I'm intentionally waiting for the right moment as you seem to think. That's me realizing that it's not worth seeking revenge. Even though I might some times fantasize about it... OK a lot more than some times, I think about it a lot... but that doesn't mean I'm going to act on anything.

Let me fill you in on a little history here. Growing up, people have often commented how I never seem to get angry. I was bullied a lot in school but never actually fought back. No one ever realized how pissed off I actually was because I never showed it. This one kid, because of him it hurts to breath, he punched me right in the middle of my chest, knocked the wind out of me and I can not heal, that was in 6th grade, I was about 11 or 12 at the time, I'm 31 now and I still feel it as if it just happened. As I said before the character I created to replace Dante/Father is loosely based on myself cause the character like me in real life suffers from constant pain. I put up with that shit for years, not because I wasn't angry, I was, I wanted to kill that kid, but I realized if I retaliate against people like that then I'd be just as bad as them.

The few times that I have actually fought back, I wasn't thinking. I almost died and went ballistic cussing and attacking anything that got in my way. It's those moments the ones where you're no longer in control, that is Wrath. You can not be calm and calculating when you're not in control of your own body.

There's a difference between willfully plotting vengeance which is what you're describing and wrath which as you said before is an extreme level of hate and anger that is above everything else. You claimed that there is no mild wrath but calm calculated vengeance, if you want to define that as wrath as well, that is mild compared to real wrath.

You can either say there are different levels of Wrath or that there is no mild wrath but you can't have it both ways. By your logic everything from irritated to pissed off is Wrath. If there is no mild wrath, if wrath must be an excess of emotion to even be called wrath than there can't be different variations of it, it has to be only one thing which is what I'm trying to get across to you. You seem to be arguing both sides that there are different levels and that it's only the top level. So which is it cause it can't be both?

Envy never liked Greed either... though to be fair no one liked Greed hence his being outcast from the rest of the group. Other than that you actually make a good point, but he ate Gluttony... he had no issues with killing his own kind if they pissed him off. He didn't even think twice about it, he just did it without any warning.

I think Wrath should be the most terrifying of the sins and Selim (Pride) is one scary ass fucker... when he's not pretending to be a normal child. That kid will mess you up.

As I said above, I am that person. You're describing me and basically saying that I have never met myself. It's other people who look at me and think I never get angry, I do, I just don't act on it. Not only would I be just as bad as the person who pissed me off in the first place but I would likely end up getting hurt even more than I already am. Hiding my emotions is basically necessary for my own survival.

Yes he was always a Homunculi in Brotherhood but that's not what I was talking about. I was comparing the 2003 version of Selim to Brotherhood's version of Selim/Pride.

2003 Selim was never one of the Homunculus, he was just a real, normal little boy and the actual son of King Bradly. Not that series Pride/fake King Bradly, but the real King Bradly. This is getting confusing again. Basically there are two Bradlys, human Bradly fathered a child, his son Selim, and was at some point killed in battle. Someone, I don't think was ever said who, tried to use human transmutation to resurrect King Bradly. Homunculi Brady aka Pride took the place of the real King Bradly. I believe he actually said at one point that his family are not even aware that the real Bradly had been killed. I believe in that version, Mustang and Riza were friends with real Bradly before his death and helped him get to the position he's currently at in the series. They noticed his personality change after he became King but thought he was being stressed by the responsibilities of his new job. It was only later that they found out that the suddenly change in personality was because Bradly had been killed and replaced with Pride.

It's only in Brotherhood that both Bradly and Selim are Homunculus. Except of course now Selim is Pride and Bradly is Wrath. In this version King Bradly never actually had a child. Selim was placed with him as an adopted son, he only played the part of a child but as you said was actually the oldest of the Homunculus. Well not including Father cause technically he's also a Homunculus which would make him the oldest, but Pride is the oldest of the Seven Deadly Sins.

At one point in Brotherhood it's said that they can regenerate an infinite number of times which would suggest that their power can't be depleted. I believe with Lust, someone once told me this was explained better in the Manga, the reason was because Mustang was burning her faster than she could regenerate.

And no it was not consistent.

Envy shrank down to a tiny shriveled little green thing.

Gluttony was eaten by Pride.

Greed1 was absorbed back into Father.

Lust was burned to death.

Sloth also technically was never killed. They lead him out into the snow where he was frozen in place and he just gave up fighting.

Wrath is really the only one who actually seemed to die the way you described.

Pride also never died, he turned into a fetus and was given over to his adopted mother who you can see at the end of the series ended up raising him as a human child with no memory of being Pride.

Someone also mentioned that the way each of them died had to do with the sin they were meant to represent which is why Gluttony was killed by being eaten. Though even that doesn't seem consistent cause Gluttony is the only one who's death has an obvious connection to his sin. Yeah I've had this same conversation before and someone else tried to tell me their deaths were really obvious too but if they're so obvious why do so many people interpret entirely different things out of the same anime?

Nope, only in the original cause in brotherhood every one of them died a different way and not a single one of them was ever clearly explained why that method of killing them worked when others didn't. It seemed to be completely random. And you seem to have your own head cannon as to what happened that isn't actually in Brotherhood. Which is fine however you want to interpret that series that makes sense for you, go right ahead, but I've hear other people interpret that series different ways, if it was really as clear and consistent as you're claiming you'd all be telling me the same thing not three entirely different stories. With the original anime, everyone got the same message. Their remains are their weakness, there's nothing to debate. But with Brotherhood it seems more open to viewer interpretation. In some ways it's actually better to not have a clear answer cause it can lead to more interesting discussions about a property when everyone interprets the same story in a different way. But for me personally, in this particular instance, I just prefer the original anime. Some times I prefer a story to have one definitive interpretation.

I think stories that should be left more ambiguous are stories that are intended to have some hidden message, that are designed with the intent of making the audience think about things in new and different ways. When a story is intended to have a clear definitive message then you can't leave things vague.

Death Note I think is a better type of story for that kind of vague ambiguous story telling because the very concept of something like a Death Note existing at all poses some moral questions and with a story like that you're bound to have some disagreements about exactly who is the villain and who is the hero in the story, Light or L? But with something like Full Metal Alchemist you have very clearly defined heroes, clearly defined villains, so there isn't really much room to be vague.

 

Yes it does because new body and no memory of his original. Remember he had no idea who Bido was even though Greed1 knew him quite well. Ling kept trying to remind Greed2 about his past as Greed1. Plus they're officially credited in the show as separate Greeds.

Think of it like the Doctor's regenerations. They're all the Doctor but to help differentiate which version of the character we're talking about they all have a different number. It doesn't necessarily make them totally different characters even though their personalities can be different but it makes it less confusing to have some way of differentiating the different incarnations of the character. That's basically what we're doing with Greed.

And this is why I think you're still confused because all that happened to Greed1. Greed2, the Ling incarnation, wasn't killed that way. He survived till the end of the series.

That would be Bido, and yeah Father did succeed in making him forget but Ling eventually helped him to remember. You know come to think of it... this is actually really similar to Dinobot or A/E Starscream. Dinobot, Starscream, and Greed all die, they all get resurrected in new bodies with no memory of their previous life, and they all end up slowly remembering their past towards the end of the series.

Yeah but I still don't get why it matters unless you can actually understand what the person is saying. In real life subtitles isn't really an option but a translator is. You kind of have to hear someone else talk unless you can understand their language. Of course if you could understand them then you wouldn't need it to be translated into English.

The giant walls of text we're putting here wouldn't even fit on the screen. But there are moments when half the screen is covered in subtitles.

It might also be because you can adjust the size of the font to adjust for your vision. I was watching online at watchcartoonsonline.com Pretty sure they were using about a size 14 text cause the default is usually set to 12 and it seemed quite a bit bigger.

That's not a contradiction. Wrath is anger in the same way that Gluttony is eating. That's not to say that all anger is Wrath, that's what you've been saying. That's basically just over simplifying it but it doesn't contradict anything. But when you say that Wrath is like the top most extreme level on a scale claiming there is no mild Wrath and in the same post claim that there are different types of Wrath, then it becomes a contradiction because then you are claiming it's only an extreme and all forms of anger at the same time. I'm not the one claiming that all anger is Wrath, you are. I'm only saying that Wrath is a specific level of anger which we seem to agree on but your also disagreeing at the same time.

Anger can manifest itself in many forms depending on the individual. I'm not over simplifying a very complex human emotion, you're over complicating it's extreme point to also include every single level below that extreme. When your talking about extremes you have to over simply it because that's the entire point of it being an extreme. Anger is a normal emotion with many different levels. Wrath is a excess of anger taken to the highest extreme. Anything short of actually going ballistic is not wrath.

I have seen different levels of anger. That's not the point because we're not talking about a normal human emotion, we're talking about an extreme. Lumping it all together and saying it's all wrath is like saying anything short of being celibate your entire life is Lust. Anything short of starving yourself by your logic is Gluttony.

The sins each represent an excess of something, an extreme. Wrath is anger but the highest extreme of anger, not all types of anger are Wrath. Being mad at someone but never showing it is not wrath. That shows control over your emotions, an ability to restrain yourself. You can't not ever get angry. That's impossible. If Wrath was was all anger as your suggesting then in order to not commit that sin you'd have to be incapable of feeling that emotion. That's why it's an extreme, and excess of something that makes it a sin. Wrath, is when you're no longer in control of your emotions, your anger is in control of you. What happens to a person when they reach this extreme, they go ballistic. It doesn't matter who you are, you could be the calmest most level headed person in the world normally but when you reach that level it doesn't matter, everyone looses control.

There's a breaking point when anger turns to wrath, some people have a much lower breaking point some people are much higher, but once you reach that breaking point, the reaction is the same. Skilled fighters suddenly forget their training and lash out randomly, it is impossible to remain calm under the influence of the Wrath. You can be angry and still remain calm, but that's mild anger, that isn't wrath. Wrath is an extreme, it's a breaking point, it's a level of anger where everyone is the same. You said it yourself, there is no mild wrath. Anything short of loosing control and going ballistic is mild. They can not both be true, either their is no mild wrath in which case I'm right, or if your correct than all anger is wrath, by your logic even being mildly annoyed is Wrath because you're the one insisting there are different types of Wrath. You're trying to claim that it's an extreme which is what I've been saying, and not an extreme at the same time. It can't be both yet you're arguing for both.

Wrong. Being calm means you're thinking clearly and rationally. If you're not thinking clearly or rationally you can not remain calm. One can not exist without the other.

Except we're not talking about how different people cope with anger in different ways, we're talking about Wrath. We're talking about an extreme circumstance. As I said before, different people have different breaking points, mine happens to be much higher than most, but no matter who you are, once you reach that breaking point, Wrath is always going ballistic. Everyone has that breaking point where they will lose control and go ballistic. That is Wrath. Anything short of that is mild. Being calm, recognizing that you're angry and having control of how you handle it, that is not Wrath, that's not the extreme, that's just a normal human reaction. Wrath is losing control. It's impossible to lose control and be calm at the same time.

I should be saying that to you because the whole point of that quote is that's what you've been claiming is Wrath. I never said that was anything but anger. But according to you, you have said multiple times that was a form of Wrath. In fact your entire argument has been based on that being Wrath. I've been trying to tell you that Wrath is only when you loose control of your anger and go ballistic not when you're calm and in control of your emotions.

Right because wrath is an extreme which means there is only one form of Wrath, that's the whole point of it being an extreme. You are not describing different forms of Wrath, you're describing different forms of anger.

Right, but that's my point because your entire argument is predicated on the idea that Wrath can be different things which would mean that there is a mild version of it. Anything that isn't going ballistic is mild. So how can you say that wrath is an extreme, that there is no mild wrath yet at the same time argue that there are different types of wrath. Both statements can not be true, they contradict each other. If there is no mild, if it is an extreme then only going ballistic can be Wrath. If there are different types of Wrath as you keep saying then there is such a thing as mild Wrath. So which is it? You can't have it both ways. It's one or the other.

Oh I'm going to have to break this one down.

"Never did I say there were varying levels of wrath"

Yes you did, right here.

"Again, wrath can manifest itself differently depending on the person."

You said it in the sentence directly before claiming you never said it. In order for Wrath to manifest itself differently depending on the person this would require there to be varying levels of Wrath. These two statements are claiming the same thing they're just said in a different way, that there is more than one version of Wrath. But you're not talking about Wrath you're talking about anger.

"And it was apparent after a while that it wasn't just simply anger anymore. It was wrath."

Nope, still just anger. She had a perfectly normal human reaction to a terrible situation. Just because you seek vengeance, just because you enjoy it, doesn't mean it's wrath. If it was wrath she wouldn't be in control. You want to see a girl on Wrath after her boyfriend cheated on her. I once walked in two girls talking. One girl's boyfriend had just cheated on her I could tell she was upset and angry, and she spouted off "Men are ass holes" seemingly not even realizing that she also just insulted me. After she had a chance to calm down she apologized saying "Sorry, I didn't mean that towards you." That was wrath mode cause she was lashing out at everyone without even thinking about it. It's hard to direct your anger at the person you're really mad at when you're in Wrath mode.

I've also been cheated on. Ex, invited another guy over to her apartment and started making out with him right in front of me. That was one of the few times I've actually showed my anger, also the most recent and that was about three or four years ago. Anyway I told her at the time that I never wanted to see her again, that I wanted nothing to do with her. Unfortunately at the time she was in a different country and I had no way of getting home till morning. That whole night I was in Wrath mode. I tried to calm down but the more she tried to defend herself the more pissed off I got. I wasn't even thinking about the kid who thankfully was in bed and didn't wake up while we were arguing and yelling at each other. It was about a month later when I finally calmed down enough to talk to her again. I'm still pissed about what happen that night but I did end up saying some things I didn't mean cause that little boy even though he's technically not mine, I still love him as if he was my own. I kind of have to put up with the cheating bitch in order to have visitation with the kid. It's not his fault what happened and his biological father already abandoned him, I'm the closest thing he has to a father, so I didn't mean it when I yelled at her saying I never wanted anything to do with her again. At the time I wasn't thinking what that meant for him I was too overcome with Wrath to be able to think clearly.

That's anger not wrath. Wrath is one form of anger not all anger. It's anger that has many forms not wrath.

Yes and no. Of course I'm going to use myself as a model for my perspective on things but I'm not ONLY using myself. Just for that instance because literally you're describing me and calling every single form of anger as Wrath. Wrath is an extreme example of anger not all anger. And I've seen it in other people too. People who have much lower breaking points. One of my friends in elementary school, broke both arms, one arm twice, another arm three times, and one time they were both broken at the same time because he kept getting into fights in school. He was bullied like me except unlike me he didn't hold anything back. He wasn't afraid to fight back. Got in trouble a lot even though he never started the fight but teachers didn't care who threw the first punch, didn't even really care that he went to the hospital while the other kid was mostly OK they still both ended up getting suspended from school. Never really understood that, I think only the bully should be punished not the victim. But according to the rules at least in my elementary school, if you're in a fight, you're in trouble regardless of who started it. Kids got in trouble simply for trying to defend themselves.

What happened at the end of this quote, you seem to have have suddenly stopped writing in the middle of a thought. I know that last word should be created but you only wrote creat and then it cuts off.

See here's what I mean about that being really vague. You saw that scene and interpreted things completely differently from how I did.

When Wrath asks, "How many times do I have to kill you before you stay dead." You took it literally. I took it as a rhetorical question that Wrath already knows the answer to. Remember he isn't even the one to kill Greed as he never dies in this fight, he's brought to Father and absorbed back into him. When Wrath says that part about being able to see Greed's weakness, notice as he's saying it, that his swords are going through Greed's throat and his ultimate shield isn't activated to protect him. I think this is what he means by weakness, not as in a way to kill him but just in the sense that he can hurt him when his shield is down. Of course technically anyone can see that weakness, it's easy to see when he's got his ultimate shield on. Though to be fair, the shield covers his skin not his cloths so maybe Wrath can see the weak points regardless of weather or not they're covered by clothing where as other people can only see the weak points in his exposed skin. Plus I think Wrath is able to see a few seconds into the future with that eye allowing him to know the exact moment that Greed is going to let his shield down.

Not necessarily... Humans can regenerate an infinite number of times but that doesn't mean they can't die. There are different levels of regeneration, a scratch healing is still regeneration even if it's not going to stop you from dying some day. Humans can't regenerate entire limbs, though some animals can do that, but they still aren't immortal. Regeneration doesn't = immortality. It's just an ability to heal damage while you remain alive. Though I suppose maybe the word infinite was a bit misleading cause if your life is finite than your healing can't really be infinite but the word immortal is also misleading. Vampires are immortal but they can still be killed. The thing is they will never die of old age. They can theoretically live forever but if there was ever anything that was truly immortal then it couldn't die no matter what you do to it. There can't really be any real immortals in fiction cause the writer needs some way for the hero to win.

It's a pretty common practice in fiction for a writer to use such misleading words to make the villain sound unbeatable and exaggerate how powerful they actually are. But there's always some kind of weakness. And again, Greed never actually dies in this fight. Ed gains the upper hand and does some serious damage to Greed but it never kills him. Also this weakness that Ed talks about in this scene is specific to Greed cause no one else has an ultimate shield. Ed mentions that Greed can't heal and maintain his shield at the same time. Lust would not have this issue because she has no shield there's nothing stopping her from healing the way that Greed's shield stops him from being able to heal. No one except Greed has that weakness. This is what I mean about their weaknesses being inconsistent.

OK now I feel like I need to watch Brotherhood again cause I don't remember that scene at all. The last time I remember seeing Sloth was when he was frozen at Briggs.

Funny you should mention that... I use to have a tv remote, I no longer have that TV or that remote, this was back in school, but that thing was working for about two years with dead batteries. I found out they were dead because I needed the batteries for something else, took them out, they weren't working. Put them back in the remote, worked fine. Used a battery tester to see how much juice they had left and according to that they were completely dead. I used it with other batters and there was nothing wrong with the tester but that remote control was some how working perfectly fine with dead batteries. I have no explanation for how this is possible but for about two years after that I continued to use that remove never changed the batteries, and it always worked. It would stop working if you removed the batteries which is also weird cause if they're dead batteries then it shouldn't make a difference if they're in there or not. But they only worked inside that remote, if you tested them or put them inside of any other device they would come up as being dead. I still to this day have no clue how that damn thing worked when by all rights it shouldn't have.

It is vague though and still inconsistent. It was said that the only way to create a Philosopher's Stone was for people to die. You see when Father dies that millions of souls leave his body, that's the power in the Philosopher's Stone being drained as you said... but you don't see this happen with any other death. There are no souls leaving Lust's body as she burns. There were no souls leaving Sloth's body in that clip you posted earlier. If human souls are the energy that powers every Philosopher's Stone, and every Homunculus has a Philosopher's Stone powering them, then every death should be the same as Father's was... maybe to a lesser extent as the Sins only had fractions of the stone that Father had but still there is no indication with the sins that their Stones are being drained of their power. It's obvious with Father's death that's what happened but only his death. Lust seemed to die because Mustang was burning her faster than she could regenerate not because of a drained battery. Even Sloths seemed kinda of random like he should if been able to pull that spike out and keep going. There's no clear indication of what actually kills them cause each death is completely different. It could work the way you're saying, there's certainly evidence of that but it's never clearly shown or explained to actually be the case. As I said, that's your interpretation and may not be entirely accurate with what the writers intended. I honestly have no clue what the intention was and probably will never know. I think only the writer can say for sure.

It is your own head cannon though. I can see how you're interpreting it that way. Like I said before there is plenty of evidence to support it but that's not the the only way to interpret those scenes. If I remember right, Lust was the first one to die at the hands of a human. Mustang says "How many times is it going to take?" You seem to have interpreted that as he figured out how to kill her but depleting the stone but if he knows that the stone can be depleted if it's energy then why is that a question? If he said it as a definitive statement, sure but "how many times is it going to take" there's a lot of ways you can take that. It's the first time they've managed to kill a Homunculus, there's no way at that point in time that he could of known that would ever work. It seemed to me like if she didn't died he was going to keep that up as long as he could. He wasn't talking about depleting the stone here, at this point I don't think they even knew about the stones. He was actually just asking how many times do I have to kill you before you stay dead. For all he knew she was never going to stay dead but he was going to try anyway.

That's how I interpreted it anyway... and that's the thing, when you say that's not your own head cannon, that's what actually happened, you're saying that there is only one possible way to interpret those scenes, your way. But your way may not actually be the right way. It is vague, it is open to different interpretations, no ever clearly says their stones are like batteries if they get used up they'll die. They do say they've figured out how to kill them but they never actually explain it. How did they figure it out? What is actually happening? If it's actually the same for all of them then why is every death completely different?

I didn't say that YOU told three different stories. I said that I've had this conversation before with other people and they each had their own interpretation, three different people three different stories. And if it's not open to view interpretation, if it's blatantly clear then how did three different people come to three completely different interpretations? If it's so clear as you're making it out to be then everyone should of gotten the same exact message.

Also as for the wiki, that's the interpretation of whoever wrote the wiki. That doesn't mean it's the writer's original intention. That's a fan page, from some random person like you or me, that doesn't make it official canon.

And you've misinterpreted me multiple times in this conversation as well. There's been about three times where I've clearly referenced a character from one series or my own version of them and you've thought I was talking about a completely different version of the character. Insisting that Envy is male not female even though I clearly acknowledged that the official version has always been male. My version is female, I had to point that out about three different times before you finally caught onto it. Thinking that I was talking about Brotherhood Pride when I clearly referenced 2003 Selim. And I'm still not entirely convinced that you know what version of Greed I was referring to at any point in this conversation even though I've clearly said multiple times that Greed2 is Ling. Maybe we've gotten that mess straightened out but I really don't know. You expect me to believe that you managed to understand the writers intent in Brotherhood when you can't even understand what I'm saying half the time? You've acknowledged that you've misunderstood me so don't you think it's possible that you may have also misunderstood what was happening in Brotherhood?

The only person refusing to acknowledge things here is you. I've responded to every bit of evidence you've thrown at me. I've acknowledged that yeah I can see why you might interpret it that way. But you, every time I've thrown something at you that contradicts your own beliefs you've ignored it. I've pointed out multiple times that every dead was different, no two deaths were the same but you refuse to even acknowledge that any contradictions to your interpretation exist.

You claim that every death was the same, a depleted battery.

With Father's death you can see the energy leave his body. That's the only time you ever see that.

With Lust it looks like Mustang was burning her faster than she could regenerate, not draining her batter though you could interpret that way as well but again if that's the case then why does she just fade out of existence, you don't see the energy being depleted like you do with Father.

Greed1 is simply absorbed back into Father.

Gluttony is eaten by Pride. These two have nothing to do with a drained battery.

Ect. ect. You still have not acknowledge if it's really consistent, if it's really this whole drained battery theory then why are they all different? Envy turns into a ugly green worm thing, this never happened to Lust. Pride turned into a fetus, this never happens to anyone else. I'm not talking about what killed them being different, I'm literally saying that result of the death or defeat is different for each character. If they all died the same way, from a depleted battery, then the animation and dialog should reflect that they're all the same. It doesn't. In the original anime they all die the same way, every death is the same, they get their remains, they become weak and can be killed. The cause and effect is the same for every character. It's consistent for all 7. In Brotherhood, there is no consistency, sure they say things that can be interpreted a certain way, your way, but there is just as much in the series contradicting that as there is supporting it. You're just choosing to ignore the parts that contradict you and cherry picking the evidence that supports your own beliefs. You keep openly refusing to acknowledge the fact that every death is unique, you're forcing your view that every death has something to do with a depleted battery as if there's no other way that it could possibly be anything different. I'm sorry but that is nothing more than your own opinion. It's not wrong exactly but if you insist on stating it as a fact it might as well be.

No, the original anime didn't spell it out from the get go. The heroes had to figure it out, with some help from Greed. I never said anything about having to spell it out from the start. Just that it needs to be said at some point in the series. In the original anime when they find out their weakness it's clearly stated that they need the remains of the person they were created from. In Brotherhood when they figure it out it's not explained... ever... they just do it... It's completely random as every one dies an entirely different death, it makes me wander how the hell they figured it out, what they figured out, and when exactly did they figure it out? There's no sense of consistency with each death. I honestly don't think the writer even knew how he wanted to kill them and so left it open to interpretation.

Again, that would be you. I don't really have a personal preference when it comes to Brotherhood as evidence by the fact that I'm able to recognize the contradicting information within the series while you cherry pick only the parts that support your own opinion.

That's basically what I said. Though you put much more simply than I did.

Not necessarily. Remember there are two... possibly three if you include the Manga though I've never read that... versions of Full Metal Alchemist. Some people might prefer one version over another, some may like parts from one version better and parts from another better. Remember at the beginning of this conversation it started because I was talking about my own version that blended what in my opinion are the best parts from both versions of the anime with a little bit of my own twist. FMA Isn't successful because of the vagueness that is Brotherhood. And I obviously hate that aspect of the story as I've said that I prefer the origins and deaths from the original anime. There are other aspects of Brotherhood that I do like, like I said, Sloth actually was a Sloth as apposed to Trisha who seemed shoehorned into that role in the original Anime. Though I like what the original anime was trying to do with Trisha/Sloth, Brotherhood Sloth was a much better representation of his sin. And I really like Greedling because there was much more of a character arch there than having Greed show up just to die.

Just because you love something doesn't mean you can't find flaws within that thing. You can still love it even if there are aspects of it you don't like. So you see that one aspect of a series can be terrible and still not hurt the success of the series. It's just a matter of does the good, the parts you like outweigh the bad, the parts you don't like. In the case of FMA of course that's a yes, there is so much more good than bad in both these animes. You shouldn't let your love for something blind you to the bad parts though. That's how people end up in terrible relationships defending ass holes.

 

Greed

Ling Yao

Greed (2)

As you can see here, Greed, Ling, and Greed2 are clearly credited as three different characters. They even have three different voice actors... well actually the English version has three different voice actors. They also list the original Japanese voice actors on those pages and apparently in the original Japanese version both versions of Greed were voiced by the same guy, Yuichi Nakamura. I'm curious now if maybe that's what you meant about hearing the original director's intent because having one person voice Greed regardless of what body he's in is obviously much different from the American version where Greed1 is Chris Patton and Greed2 is Troy Baker.

If he believes himself to be a separate entity than doesn't that make him one? He has no memory of the other Greed and philosophically speaking what makes you YOU is your past experiences. You are the person you are today because of your past. Greed at that point has no past, no memory, so he is in a sense a different character.

Yeah, but all your files are gone, everything that made it what it once was is gone, so in a sense it's not the same and unless you backed up that information it'll never be the same. Also Greed didn't just have his hard drive wiped, he also had it installed into a completely different computer. His original body is gone, his memories are gone, there is nothing left of the original Greed. He is essentially a completely different character.

Exactly, Greed himself even identified as a different entity so why do you insist on treating them as the same person? What exactly do you think makes them the same guy?

This might be hard for someone like you to understand but "I've" doesn't mean what you think it does. You're thinking comes from living as a single entity and makes it hard for you to comprehend life as ever being any other way.

Let me explain it like this. If you drop a coffee cup on the floor, it shatters into different pieces. One piece is it's own separate entity from the others but at the same time they're all pieces of the same coffee cup. You could glue the cup back together but it's never going to be exactly the same as it was before you broke it. It's both a broken coffee cup, one entity, and multiple fractured pieces, multiple different entities. One thing and many things at the same time. It's just a different context.

As far as I know there is no word for this concept but it applies to people as well. You think "I" can only mean one thing because in your mind there can only be I or us, one or the other not both. You hear Greed say "I've forgotten my whole past!" and you think he's acknowledging himself as the same entity as the first Greed. I suppose you think he should of said "He's forgotten his whole past!" But it's not actually that simple.

He's basically like that broken cup. Let's say it's broken into 2 pieces. The handle has broken off. The coffee cup is still a coffee cup but it's lost it's handle. The cup and the handle are now two different things. You could say the coffee cup has lost it's handle in this context you'd be referring to the cup as it was, that it had a handle. You could also still refer to it as a coffee cup cause it still is, but it's not the same as it was before. It was a cup with a handle and now is a cup without a handle.

Going back to Greed again, I doesn't necessarily mean he's acknowledging that he is Greed1 only that he was Greed1. He still clearly denies being that other Greed, he identifies himself as a different Greed, the second Greed, Greed2. There's a big difference between recognizing that he was once Greed1 in the past and actually acknowledging himself to still be the same Greed now.

Well yeah. Of course it's easier for kids to pick up a new language than adults. I don't think I could do it at my age. It seems to be really hard for me to pick up other languages it all sounds like complete gibberish to me. I don't even remember how the hell I learned English. I just know it, I don't know how I know it, I just do. I've been speaking English longer than I can even remember. If I knew exactly how I learned English then maybe it could give me insight into how I could make other languages easier to learn. But as far as I can tell little kids just pick it up some how really quickly while adults struggle with it. It's not impossible to learn as an adult but just really hard and I don't have the time or the patients for that.

I have no idea like I said it was on watchcartoonsonline.com. And also, you can adjust the settings for the size of the text in the DVD, you just go to set up and you should have an option to change the size of the subtitles. This is for people with poor vision who might not be able to read the default size. It's more likely that whoever uploaded the video to that web site had their settings set to a larger size cause I can't change it on the computer, it's part of the video once it's been uploaded online.

Seems like I didn't misinterpret anything cause you're still saying the same thing exactly the same way I just interpreted it.

"I said that Wrath is the most extreme form of anger. But that depending on the individual, they can show it differently!"

It's right there, your words exactly and again I will say both statements can not be true. If Wrath is the most extreme form of anger then there can only be one form of Wrath. Depending on the individual they can show ANGER differently, this is true, but it's not WRATH, it's only wrath once they get to a level of anger that is going ballistic and everyone no matter who you are is capable of going ballistic. That is an extreme, wrath is that extreme.

No, I never said that, you misinterpreted me. I said that Wrath is the extreme of those emotions, Wrath is all of those things but not all of those things are Wrath. Anger can be mild, Wrath can not.

Not my words they're you own words. "depending on the individual, they can show it differently!" Those are YOUR words not mine. You keep saying this over and over again. Your entire argument is based around this idea. In order for this claim to be true then all anger must be Wrath.

I have said that Wrath is only the most extreme level of anger, that means losing control and going ballistic. It's an extreme, there is only one way an extreme can work. If different things can happen then it's no longer an extreme, then all anger becomes wrath.

Your argument only works if you equate all anger to wrath. If you agree that wrath is an extreme than this statement which YOU keep making must be false.

Nope, once again you've failed to recognize I was talking about two different things.

"Anger can manifest itself in many forms depending on the individual. I'm not over simplifying a very complex human emotion, you're over complicating it's extreme point to also include every single level below that extreme. When your talking about extremes you have to over simply it because that's the entire point of it being an extreme. Anger is a normal emotion with many different levels. Wrath is a excess of anger taken to the highest extreme. Anything short of actually going ballistic is not wrath."

That's clearly a different context there cause in the first part when I denied over simplifying a very complex human emotion I was referring to anger in all it's forms. The second part where I say that you have to over simplify it I was referring to the extreme which is wrath not anger. Also you are equating wrath and anger to be the same thing otherwise you should of easily recognized that I was talking about two different things here. Anger is a spectrum not an extreme. Wrath is an extreme not a spectrum.

I came to that conclusion because YOU are the one trying to claim that you can be calm and still be Wrath. YOU are the one claiming that there are different types of Wrath. In order for the things YOU claim to be true then all anger is Wrath. I did not lump anything together, I've always maintained that Wrath is an extreme, you're the one who keeps claiming that all anger is Wrath. Again your exact words. "depending on the individual, they can show it differently!" You said that not me. Depending on the individual they can show anger differently yes, but not wrath. Wrath is an extreme, extremes can not be different depending on the individual that's what makes it an extreme.

Nope not at all. My words are my words and your words are your words. You keep trying to deny it but look in the very next quote you say it again.

I'm over simplifying wrath because as I said before, it's an extreme not a spectrum. Wrath is the highest form of anger. The highest form of anger is when you lose control and go ballistic.

I'm not saying that everyone is the same, I'm not saying that everyone copes with anger in the same way because we're not talking about anger we're talking about Wrath.

And that entire quote you just equated Wrath as anger, the very thing that you keep denying that you're doing. You clearly said wrath but you're describing anger. That means that YOU think they're the same thing. You're lumping them together not me. I don't know why you think I'm doing it.

"Wrath is NOT always going ballistic." Yes it is.

"People handle themselves differently." That's anger not wrath.

"They show their emotions differently, that's why there's such broad definitions and synonyms for each emotions to include the extremes." No arguments there.

"But when it reaches the extremes, there's still different ways in which it manifests itself depending on the person's ability to deal with it." And here you've just lumped the extreme that is wrath in with all forms of anger again. There is not still different ways in which it manifests itself that's what make it an extreme because there is no higher level.

As for the rest of it, you're just describing different levels of anger not wrath. Wrath does not have different levels, it's an extreme.

I'm going to have to explain this a different way. The spectrum of anger goes like this.

Level 1. Mildly annoyed.

Level 2. Irritated.

Level 3. mad.

Level 4. Angry.

Level 5. Pissed off.

Level 6. I want to hurt someone.

Level 7. I want to kill someone.

Level 8. I'm going to hurt someone.

Level 9. I'm going to kill someone.

Level 10. Total loss of control/Ballistic mode/Wrath

Different people will go through these states at different rates, some more quickly than others, some people might even skip over levels or go threw them in a different order. I'm not saying that everyone will experience the spectrum in the exact same way. The thing is though we're not talking about the spectrum. We're talking specifically about Level 10. That is Wrath. Anything other than a 10 is not wrath.

According to you, who literally just claimed that Wrath can manifest itself in different ways, the entire spectrum is all Wrath including the lowest level Mildly annoyed. Which honestly right now in this conversation I feel like I'm in the spectrum some where between level 1 and level 2. By your logic this is wrath, everything is wrath because you keep insisting that everyone experiences it differently, because you keep insisting that the spectrum of anger is wrath then it's no longer an extreme, it's the entire spectrum. The highest extreme means that only level 10 can be Wrath. If you're saying that level 8 can be wrath too then that means so can level 1 and then it becomes a contradiction to the claim that there is no mild wrath. The only way it can be an extreme is if only level 10 is Wrath.

Either it's just 10 or all of it is Wrath. Again, you can't have it both ways. It's one or the other.

Doesn't make any difference. Still means the same thing you're just saying it in a different way.

Again, levels or ways in this context they mean the same thing.

Again, here you are equating anger and wrath as being the same thing. You were in fact talking about anger, you think it's wrath but it's not. You're talking about it as a spectrum of different things or as you put it, "Wrath can manifest itself in different ways." but that is not wrath, that's anger. Anger can manifest itself in different ways. Wrath is simply one extreme of that spectrum, it doesn't manifest in different ways that's what makes it an extreme.

You realize you actually just said anger this time? You're freely using wrath and anger interchangeably which again suggests that you think they're the same thing. And I never denied that there are different variations of anger.

Yes I was and no I didn't. I guess you missed the part where I said I'm still pissed about what happened that night. I don't act on it but that doesn't mean she's forgiven. I just put up with her shit for the sake of the child. Just because I'm hiding my real feelings doesn't mean I've forgiven her. That will never happen.

Sure I did, I'm not going into exact details cause it's private and I'm not going to share that to some random stranger on the internet. But I did give you a vague description of what happened.

I don't know how to answer that question cause I don't even know what that has to do with what I said. What are you trying to ask me? I don't understand the question.

I'm not ignoring it I don't know what it is. I'm not the author, I've never met the author, I've never even seen a picture of the author. How can I actively and purposely ignore someone I know nothing about?

OK first of all I said it was rhetorical in my post. You seemed to think it was a real question cause you used it as evidence to your whole depleted battery theory. If you also thought it was rhetorical then why did you present it as evidence? That doesn't make sense.

Secondly, the tone of the English version also sounded rhetorical which is why I said it was rhetorical.

That is what we were discussing but their different powers and abilities is why there was never a clear definitive weakness. Greed's weakness was his inability to heal and maintain his ultimate shield at the same time. I'm sure if Ed wasn't already weakened himself and could keep attacking Greed the way he was going that he could of killed him by exploiting that weakness. But this has nothing to do with draining a battery, it's weakening his shield and taking advantage of the fact he can't heal with it. This strategy might work for Greed but it's not going to work with the others.

I kinda want to watch the 2003 version again too.

But it obviously has a completely different effect on Envy that isn't at all consistent with how Lust died.

"you've admitted to it yourself" I said a lot of things in that quote so I'm not exactly sure what "it" is that you're referring to.

"you admitted to your bias and the refusal to take an objective look at things." I never said any such thing.

So you're now speaking utter nonsense and making up things that never happened?

"And forgetting key things in the series is not helping your argument here either." OK that part is true but the rest of it, what the hell are you talking about?

I didn't forget about them but no you do not see them die the same way as Father. You even admitted it wasn't the same earlier in this post. "The reason why there were no souls leaving Lust's body was because the energy provided by all those souls were used up. *POOF* gone. Nadda. Zip. Zero. Zilch. The Amestris people souls were still intact when they left the "Father." And for the most part whatever was left of the souls that haven't been used up of the people of Xerxes." Now you're trying to claim that you do see souls leaving their bodies the same as Father?

"Their deaths may have been different, but they were not unique." That's a contradiction. You just admitted that their deaths were different which by definition makes them unique and then claimed they're not unique which would mean they're not different.

I'm not talking about the circumstances of their deaths. I'm talking about the result. Only Father has the souls leave his body, no one else does this. Only Envy turns into a little green thing. Only Pride turns into a fetus. ect.

Even in the original Anime the actual circumstance of their deaths was difference but what actually killed them was the same, being near their remains. No matter what the circumstances of the death is always going to be different but that's not what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about the fact that there was never any clear consistency between each death like there was with having their remains near them in the original anime. They didn't all have their battery depleted. Greed was absorbed back into Father, Gluttony was eaten by Pride, those two clearly have nothing to do with a depleted battery. There's also Van's death, everyone else died in battle while Van died just sitting on his knees visiting Trisha's grave. How do you explain that one? How was his battery depleted just sitting there talking? I don't get how you're so sure of this depleted battery theory when there's just as much evidence against it as there is supporting it.

Just because others agree with your opinion doesn't make it a fact.

And the thread is for Full Metal Alchemist so we're technically on topic... though we're suppose to be talking about the live action movie not the anime. Though there isn't really much I can say about something that hasn't been released yet. We're killing time till the movie actually comes out. Plus, I'm still going to end up comparing it to the animes at some point. It's inevitable.

 

Well, if I want one off-topic, outlandishly long wall-of-text post after another, I now know where to come: the Live-Action Full Metal Alchemist thread.

 

MISIA Performs Theme Song for "Fullmetal Alchemist" Live-Action Film

 

This. So much this. After going back through FMA Brotherhood I still say it is the better of the two. While the animation style is virtually the same the pacing and the story to me are much better.

 

Live-Action Fullmetal Alchemist Film Gets IMAX, 4DX Screenings in Japan